Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 431 | control, N = 211 | treatment, N = 221 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 43 | 50.98 ± 12.72 (25 - 72) | 50.32 ± 12.92 (25 - 72) | 51.60 ± 12.79 (32 - 72) | 0.747 |
gender | 43 | 0.449 | |||
f | 29 (67%) | 13 (62%) | 16 (73%) | ||
m | 14 (33%) | 8 (38%) | 6 (27%) | ||
occupation | 43 | 0.978 | |||
full_time | 5 (12%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
homemaker | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
other | 2 (4.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
part_time | 7 (16%) | 4 (19%) | 3 (14%) | ||
retired | 13 (30%) | 6 (29%) | 7 (32%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
unemploy | 10 (23%) | 5 (24%) | 5 (23%) | ||
marital | 43 | 0.892 | |||
divore | 5 (12%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
married | 8 (19%) | 3 (14%) | 5 (23%) | ||
none | 24 (56%) | 12 (57%) | 12 (55%) | ||
seperation | 3 (7.0%) | 2 (9.5%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
widow | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
edu | 43 | 0.399 | |||
bachelor | 13 (30%) | 5 (24%) | 8 (36%) | ||
diploma | 7 (16%) | 5 (24%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
hd_ad | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
postgraduate | 4 (9.3%) | 2 (9.5%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
primary | 4 (9.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 3 (14%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 2 (4.7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 10 (23%) | 7 (33%) | 3 (14%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (2.3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
fam_income | 43 | 0.881 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
12001_14000 | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 4 (9.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 3 (14%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (4.8%) | 1 (4.5%) | ||
18001_20000 | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 9 (21%) | 6 (29%) | 3 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 5 (12%) | 2 (9.5%) | 3 (14%) | ||
4001_6000 | 6 (14%) | 3 (14%) | 3 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 5 (12%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
8001_10000 | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (9.1%) | ||
below_2000 | 4 (9.3%) | 1 (4.8%) | 3 (14%) | ||
medication | 43 | 37 (86%) | 17 (81%) | 20 (91%) | 0.412 |
onset_duration | 43 | 16.62 ± 12.51 (0 - 56) | 17.90 ± 14.48 (1 - 56) | 15.40 ± 10.48 (0 - 35) | 0.519 |
onset_age | 43 | 34.36 ± 12.65 (15 - 62) | 32.43 ± 11.43 (16 - 55) | 36.20 ± 13.73 (15 - 62) | 0.334 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 431 | control, N = 211 | treatment, N = 221 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 43 | 3.44 ± 1.26 (1 - 5) | 3.38 ± 1.32 (1 - 5) | 3.50 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 0.761 |
recovery_stage_b | 43 | 18.40 ± 2.67 (9 - 23) | 18.43 ± 2.93 (9 - 23) | 18.36 ± 2.48 (14 - 23) | 0.938 |
ras_confidence | 43 | 30.70 ± 4.78 (19 - 40) | 30.24 ± 4.56 (19 - 40) | 31.14 ± 5.05 (22 - 39) | 0.545 |
ras_willingness | 43 | 12.30 ± 2.05 (7 - 15) | 12.29 ± 1.82 (9 - 15) | 12.32 ± 2.30 (7 - 15) | 0.959 |
ras_goal | 43 | 17.67 ± 3.08 (12 - 24) | 17.57 ± 3.09 (12 - 23) | 17.77 ± 3.13 (12 - 24) | 0.833 |
ras_reliance | 43 | 13.44 ± 3.11 (8 - 20) | 13.24 ± 2.81 (8 - 18) | 13.64 ± 3.43 (8 - 20) | 0.680 |
ras_domination | 43 | 10.16 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 10.95 ± 1.72 (8 - 15) | 9.41 ± 2.79 (3 - 14) | 0.036 |
symptom | 43 | 29.67 ± 10.20 (14 - 56) | 28.86 ± 8.62 (14 - 45) | 30.45 ± 11.66 (15 - 56) | 0.614 |
slof_work | 43 | 22.98 ± 5.03 (10 - 30) | 23.43 ± 4.79 (15 - 30) | 22.55 ± 5.32 (10 - 30) | 0.571 |
slof_relationship | 43 | 26.33 ± 5.81 (11 - 35) | 26.95 ± 5.89 (15 - 35) | 25.73 ± 5.82 (11 - 35) | 0.496 |
satisfaction | 43 | 21.23 ± 6.88 (5 - 30) | 19.86 ± 6.71 (5 - 29) | 22.55 ± 6.93 (5 - 30) | 0.204 |
mhc_emotional | 43 | 11.58 ± 3.55 (4 - 18) | 11.14 ± 2.97 (6 - 17) | 12.00 ± 4.05 (4 - 18) | 0.435 |
mhc_social | 43 | 14.93 ± 4.80 (6 - 25) | 15.19 ± 4.55 (8 - 25) | 14.68 ± 5.13 (6 - 23) | 0.733 |
mhc_psychological | 43 | 22.28 ± 6.22 (6 - 36) | 21.57 ± 6.18 (10 - 33) | 22.95 ± 6.33 (6 - 36) | 0.473 |
resilisnce | 43 | 16.95 ± 4.71 (6 - 25) | 16.86 ± 4.45 (6 - 24) | 17.05 ± 5.04 (7 - 25) | 0.897 |
social_provision | 43 | 13.67 ± 3.29 (5 - 20) | 13.43 ± 2.96 (8 - 20) | 13.91 ± 3.64 (5 - 19) | 0.638 |
els_value_living | 43 | 17.14 ± 3.04 (5 - 23) | 16.86 ± 2.17 (12 - 20) | 17.41 ± 3.71 (5 - 23) | 0.558 |
els_life_fulfill | 43 | 13.07 ± 3.38 (4 - 18) | 12.19 ± 3.37 (5 - 17) | 13.91 ± 3.25 (4 - 18) | 0.096 |
els | 43 | 30.21 ± 5.78 (9 - 40) | 29.05 ± 4.68 (20 - 36) | 31.32 ± 6.57 (9 - 40) | 0.201 |
social_connect | 43 | 26.84 ± 10.18 (8 - 48) | 27.05 ± 9.29 (8 - 45) | 26.64 ± 11.18 (8 - 48) | 0.897 |
shs_agency | 43 | 14.19 ± 4.82 (3 - 20) | 13.71 ± 4.43 (3 - 20) | 14.64 ± 5.23 (3 - 20) | 0.537 |
shs_pathway | 43 | 16.70 ± 3.73 (4 - 22) | 16.19 ± 3.23 (9 - 21) | 17.18 ± 4.16 (4 - 22) | 0.390 |
shs | 43 | 30.88 ± 7.90 (7 - 42) | 29.90 ± 7.22 (16 - 41) | 31.82 ± 8.56 (7 - 42) | 0.434 |
esteem | 43 | 12.49 ± 1.24 (10 - 15) | 12.67 ± 1.06 (10 - 14) | 12.32 ± 1.39 (10 - 15) | 0.364 |
mlq_search | 43 | 15.21 ± 3.38 (3 - 21) | 15.19 ± 3.31 (6 - 21) | 15.23 ± 3.53 (3 - 20) | 0.972 |
mlq_presence | 43 | 13.67 ± 4.04 (3 - 21) | 14.14 ± 2.99 (6 - 19) | 13.23 ± 4.87 (3 - 21) | 0.464 |
mlq | 43 | 28.88 ± 6.77 (6 - 41) | 29.33 ± 6.12 (12 - 40) | 28.45 ± 7.45 (6 - 41) | 0.676 |
empower | 43 | 19.95 ± 4.33 (6 - 28) | 20.10 ± 3.67 (11 - 24) | 19.82 ± 4.96 (6 - 28) | 0.837 |
ismi_resistance | 43 | 14.93 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 14.95 ± 2.16 (12 - 19) | 14.91 ± 3.31 (5 - 20) | 0.960 |
ismi_discrimation | 43 | 11.19 ± 3.16 (5 - 19) | 12.00 ± 3.00 (5 - 17) | 10.41 ± 3.19 (5 - 19) | 0.100 |
sss_affective | 43 | 9.49 ± 4.28 (3 - 18) | 9.95 ± 3.46 (3 - 15) | 9.05 ± 4.98 (3 - 18) | 0.494 |
sss_behavior | 43 | 9.49 ± 4.45 (3 - 18) | 10.19 ± 4.24 (3 - 18) | 8.82 ± 4.64 (3 - 18) | 0.318 |
sss_cognitive | 43 | 7.77 ± 4.01 (3 - 18) | 7.48 ± 3.63 (3 - 15) | 8.05 ± 4.41 (3 - 18) | 0.647 |
sss | 43 | 26.74 ± 11.84 (9 - 54) | 27.62 ± 9.89 (9 - 44) | 25.91 ± 13.63 (9 - 54) | 0.642 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.38 | 0.261 | 2.87, 3.89 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.119 | 0.364 | -0.595, 0.833 | 0.745 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.752 | 0.514 | -0.256, 1.76 | 0.158 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.265 | 0.824 | -1.88, 1.35 | 0.750 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.048 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.4 | 0.588 | 17.3, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.065 | 0.822 | -1.68, 1.55 | 0.937 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.153 | 0.586 | -1.30, 0.995 | 0.800 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.440 | 0.967 | -1.45, 2.33 | 0.659 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 30.2 | 1.032 | 28.2, 32.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.898 | 1.443 | -1.93, 3.73 | 0.537 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.617 | 0.732 | -0.817, 2.05 | 0.419 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.151 | 1.211 | -2.22, 2.52 | 0.903 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.3 | 0.446 | 11.4, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.623 | -1.19, 1.25 | 0.959 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.406 | 0.558 | -1.50, 0.687 | 0.483 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.537 | 0.918 | -1.26, 2.34 | 0.571 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.6 | 0.684 | 16.2, 18.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.201 | 0.956 | -1.67, 2.08 | 0.834 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.117 | 0.660 | -1.18, 1.41 | 0.862 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.17 | 1.090 | -3.30, 0.971 | 0.310 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.679 | 11.9, 14.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.398 | 0.949 | -1.46, 2.26 | 0.677 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.136 | 0.428 | -0.703, 0.975 | 0.757 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.541 | 0.709 | -0.848, 1.93 | 0.464 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.496 | 9.98, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.54 | 0.693 | -2.90, -0.184 | 0.031 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.11 | 0.921 | -2.91, 0.700 | 0.244 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.67 | 1.489 | -0.247, 5.59 | 0.086 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.095 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 28.9 | 2.243 | 24.5, 33.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.60 | 3.136 | -4.55, 7.74 | 0.613 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.21 | 1.901 | -4.94, 2.51 | 0.539 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.00 | 3.143 | -5.16, 7.16 | 0.757 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 23.4 | 1.091 | 21.3, 25.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.883 | 1.525 | -3.87, 2.11 | 0.566 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.84 | 0.601 | -3.02, -0.660 | 0.014 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.30 | 0.996 | -0.647, 3.26 | 0.222 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 27.0 | 1.258 | 24.5, 29.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.23 | 1.759 | -4.67, 2.22 | 0.490 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.46 | 1.113 | -3.64, 0.720 | 0.220 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.73 | 1.839 | -0.878, 6.33 | 0.170 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.9 | 1.502 | 16.9, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.69 | 2.100 | -1.43, 6.80 | 0.208 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.41 | 1.017 | 0.418, 4.41 | 0.042 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.47 | 1.684 | -4.77, 1.83 | 0.405 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.1 | 0.747 | 9.68, 12.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.857 | 1.045 | -1.19, 2.91 | 0.417 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.15 | 1.196 | -1.20, 3.49 | 0.367 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.464 | 1.954 | -4.29, 3.36 | 0.818 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 1.141 | 13.0, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.509 | 1.595 | -3.63, 2.62 | 0.751 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.41 | 1.670 | -0.864, 5.68 | 0.167 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.29 | 2.736 | -8.66, 2.07 | 0.244 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 1.341 | 18.9, 24.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.38 | 1.875 | -2.29, 5.06 | 0.465 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.07 | 2.125 | -2.09, 6.24 | 0.347 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.92 | 3.471 | -8.72, 4.88 | 0.589 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 1.033 | 14.8, 18.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.188 | 1.445 | -2.64, 3.02 | 0.897 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.387 | 0.564 | -0.719, 1.49 | 0.510 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.45 | 0.934 | -4.28, -0.618 | 0.027 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.728 | 12.0, 14.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.481 | 1.018 | -1.51, 2.48 | 0.639 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.327 | 0.664 | -1.63, 0.974 | 0.633 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.10 | 1.097 | -1.05, 3.25 | 0.342 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.9 | 0.663 | 15.6, 18.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 0.927 | -1.27, 2.37 | 0.555 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.34 | 0.668 | 0.027, 2.65 | 0.076 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.60 | 1.103 | -3.76, 0.567 | 0.181 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.2 | 0.710 | 10.8, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.72 | 0.993 | -0.228, 3.66 | 0.091 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.38 | 0.665 | 0.075, 2.68 | 0.068 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.56 | 1.098 | -3.71, 0.596 | 0.190 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.058 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.0 | 1.239 | 26.6, 31.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.27 | 1.732 | -1.12, 5.67 | 0.197 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.71 | 1.161 | 0.433, 4.98 | 0.044 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.18 | 1.917 | -6.94, 0.580 | 0.130 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.0 | 2.241 | 22.7, 31.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.411 | 3.133 | -6.55, 5.73 | 0.896 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.74 | 1.575 | -1.35, 4.83 | 0.297 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 2.69 | 2.606 | -2.41, 7.80 | 0.327 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 1.065 | 11.6, 15.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.922 | 1.489 | -2.00, 3.84 | 0.539 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.30 | 0.877 | -0.417, 3.02 | 0.171 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.80 | 1.451 | -4.65, 1.04 | 0.244 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.802 | 14.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.991 | 1.121 | -1.21, 3.19 | 0.381 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.756 | 0.702 | -0.620, 2.13 | 0.310 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.879 | 1.160 | -3.15, 1.39 | 0.468 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 1.732 | 26.5, 33.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.91 | 2.421 | -2.83, 6.66 | 0.434 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.92 | 1.238 | -0.508, 4.34 | 0.156 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.74 | 2.048 | -6.75, 1.28 | 0.214 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.7 | 0.266 | 12.1, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.348 | 0.372 | -1.08, 0.381 | 0.354 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.894 | 0.493 | -0.073, 1.86 | 0.096 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.889 | 0.797 | -2.45, 0.673 | 0.284 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.098 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 15.2 | 0.755 | 13.7, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.037 | 1.056 | -2.03, 2.11 | 0.972 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.760 | 1.362 | -1.91, 3.43 | 0.586 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.00 | 2.208 | -6.33, 2.33 | 0.378 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 14.1 | 0.892 | 12.4, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.916 | 1.247 | -3.36, 1.53 | 0.467 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.665 | 0.582 | -0.476, 1.81 | 0.282 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.57 | 0.964 | -4.46, -0.683 | 0.025 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.043 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 1.532 | 26.3, 32.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.879 | 2.142 | -5.08, 3.32 | 0.684 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.32 | 1.748 | -2.11, 4.74 | 0.469 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -5.10 | 2.881 | -10.7, 0.546 | 0.106 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 20.1 | 0.952 | 18.2, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.277 | 1.331 | -2.89, 2.33 | 0.836 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.408 | 0.584 | -0.737, 1.55 | 0.503 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.28 | 0.967 | -3.18, 0.611 | 0.217 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 15.0 | 0.582 | 13.8, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.043 | 0.813 | -1.64, 1.55 | 0.958 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.129 | 0.858 | -1.81, 1.55 | 0.884 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.473 | 1.406 | -2.28, 3.23 | 0.744 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.673 | 10.7, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.59 | 0.941 | -3.43, 0.253 | 0.098 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.857 | 0.754 | -2.34, 0.622 | 0.280 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.674 | 1.244 | -1.76, 3.11 | 0.598 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.057 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.926 | 8.14, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.907 | 1.294 | -3.44, 1.63 | 0.487 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.329 | 0.648 | -1.60, 0.942 | 0.624 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.345 | 1.072 | -2.45, 1.76 | 0.755 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.953 | 8.32, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.37 | 1.332 | -3.98, 1.24 | 0.309 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.32 | 0.960 | -3.20, 0.560 | 0.201 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.04 | 1.585 | -2.06, 4.15 | 0.526 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 7.48 | 0.897 | 5.72, 9.23 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.569 | 1.254 | -1.89, 3.03 | 0.652 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.24 | 0.829 | -0.390, 2.86 | 0.169 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.23 | 1.370 | -4.92, 0.455 | 0.136 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 27.6 | 2.601 | 22.5, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.71 | 3.637 | -8.84, 5.42 | 0.641 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.535 | 1.778 | -4.02, 2.95 | 0.770 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.727 | 2.943 | -6.49, 5.04 | 0.810 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.10) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.87, 3.89], t(48) = 12.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.83], t(48) = 0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.76], t(48) = 1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.35], t(48) = -0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.43 (95% CI [17.28, 19.58], t(48) = 31.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.55], t(48) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.99], t(48) = -0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.45, 2.33], t(48) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.24 (95% CI [28.21, 32.26], t(48) = 29.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.93, 3.73], t(48) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.82, 2.05], t(48) = 0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.52], t(48) = 0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.29 (95% CI [11.41, 13.16], t(48) = 27.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.19, 1.25], t(48) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.50, 0.69], t(48) = -0.73, p = 0.467; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.34], t(48) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.57 (95% CI [16.23, 18.91], t(48) = 25.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.67, 2.08], t(48) = 0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.41], t(48) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-3.30, 0.97], t(48) = -1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [11.91, 14.57], t(48) = 19.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.26], t(48) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.98], t(48) = 0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.93], t(48) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.98, 11.92], t(48) = 22.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.54, 95% CI [-2.90, -0.18], t(48) = -2.23, p = 0.026; Std. beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.24, -0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-2.91, 0.70], t(48) = -1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.67, 95% CI [-0.25, 5.59], t(48) = 1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 2.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.86 (95% CI [24.46, 33.25], t(48) = 12.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.60, 95% CI [-4.55, 7.74], t(48) = 0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.79])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-4.94, 2.51], t(48) = -0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-5.16, 7.16], t(48) = 0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.43 (95% CI [21.29, 25.57], t(48) = 21.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.87, 2.11], t(48) = -0.58, p = 0.563; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.84, 95% CI [-3.02, -0.66], t(48) = -3.06, p = 0.002; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.64, -0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.65, 3.26], t(48) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.49, 29.42], t(48) = 21.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.23, 95% CI [-4.67, 2.22], t(48) = -0.70, p = 0.486; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.46, 95% CI [-3.64, 0.72], t(48) = -1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.73, 95% CI [-0.88, 6.33], t(48) = 1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.86 (95% CI [16.91, 22.80], t(48) = 13.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-1.43, 6.80], t(48) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.01])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.41, 95% CI [0.42, 4.41], t(48) = 2.37, p = 0.018; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [0.06, 0.65])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-4.77, 1.83], t(48) = -0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.14 (95% CI [9.68, 12.61], t(48) = 14.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-1.19, 2.91], t(48) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.86])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-1.20, 3.49], t(48) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-4.29, 3.36], t(48) = -0.24, p = 0.812; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.99])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [12.95, 17.43], t(48) = 13.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.63, 2.62], t(48) = -0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.41, 95% CI [-0.86, 5.68], t(48) = 1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.29, 95% CI [-8.66, 2.07], t(48) = -1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [18.94, 24.20], t(48) = 16.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-2.29, 5.06], t(48) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.84])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.07, 95% CI [-2.09, 6.24], t(48) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.92, 95% CI [-8.72, 4.88], t(48) = -0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.81])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [14.83, 18.88], t(48) = 16.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.64, 3.02], t(48) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.49], t(48) = 0.69, p = 0.493; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.45, 95% CI [-4.28, -0.62], t(48) = -2.62, p = 0.009; Std. beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.43 (95% CI [12.00, 14.86], t(48) = 18.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.51, 2.48], t(48) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.63, 0.97], t(48) = -0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-1.05, 3.25], t(48) = 1.00, p = 0.318; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.99])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [15.56, 18.16], t(48) = 25.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.37], t(48) = 0.60, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.82])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [0.03, 2.65], t(48) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [9.34e-03, 0.91])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-3.76, 0.57], t(48) = -1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.19 (95% CI [10.80, 13.58], t(48) = 17.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.72, 95% CI [-0.23, 3.66], t(48) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [0.07, 2.68], t(48) = 2.07, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [0.02, 0.83])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.56, 95% CI [-3.71, 0.60], t(48) = -1.42, p = 0.157; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.05 (95% CI [26.62, 31.48], t(48) = 23.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-1.12, 5.67], t(48) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.71, 95% CI [0.43, 4.98], t(48) = 2.33, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.08, 0.89])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.18, 95% CI [-6.94, 0.58], t(48) = -1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.05 (95% CI [22.65, 31.44], t(48) = 12.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-6.55, 5.73], t(48) = -0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-1.35, 4.83], t(48) = 1.10, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-2.41, 7.80], t(48) = 1.03, p = 0.301; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.71 (95% CI [11.63, 15.80], t(48) = 12.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.84], t(48) = 0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.82])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.42, 3.02], t(48) = 1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.64])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.80, 95% CI [-4.65, 1.04], t(48) = -1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.19 (95% CI [14.62, 17.76], t(48) = 20.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.19], t(48) = 0.88, p = 0.376; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.91])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.13], t(48) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.61])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.15, 1.39], t(48) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.51, 33.30], t(48) = 17.27, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-2.83, 6.66], t(48) = 0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.88])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.92, 95% CI [-0.51, 4.34], t(48) = 1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.57])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.74, 95% CI [-6.75, 1.28], t(48) = -1.34, p = 0.182; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.67 (95% CI [12.15, 13.19], t(48) = 47.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.38], t(48) = -0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.86], t(48) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.49])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-2.45, 0.67], t(48) = -1.12, p = 0.265; Std. beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [13.71, 16.67], t(48) = 20.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-2.03, 2.11], t(48) = 0.03, p = 0.972; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.43], t(48) = 0.56, p = 0.577; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.00, 95% CI [-6.33, 2.33], t(48) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.88, 0.69])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.39, 15.89], t(48) = 15.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-3.36, 1.53], t(48) = -0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.81], t(48) = 1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.57, 95% CI [-4.46, -0.68], t(48) = -2.67, p = 0.008; Std. beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.11, -0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [26.33, 32.34], t(48) = 19.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-5.08, 3.32], t(48) = -0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-2.11, 4.74], t(48) = 0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.69])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -5.10, 95% CI [-10.75, 0.55], t(48) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.10 (95% CI [18.23, 21.96], t(48) = 21.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.89, 2.33], t(48) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.55], t(48) = 0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-3.18, 0.61], t(48) = -1.33, p = 0.184; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.81, 16.09], t(48) = 25.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.55], t(48) = -0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.55], t(48) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.60])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-2.28, 3.23], t(48) = 0.34, p = 0.737; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [10.68, 13.32], t(48) = 17.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.43, 0.25], t(48) = -1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-2.34, 0.62], t(48) = -1.14, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.76, 3.11], t(48) = 0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.98])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [8.14, 11.77], t(48) = 10.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.44, 1.63], t(48) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.60, 0.94], t(48) = -0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-2.45, 1.76], t(48) = -0.32, p = 0.747; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.19 (95% CI [8.32, 12.06], t(48) = 10.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-3.98, 1.24], t(48) = -1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-3.20, 0.56], t(48) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [-2.06, 4.15], t(48) = 0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.96])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.48 (95% CI [5.72, 9.23], t(48) = 8.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.89, 3.03], t(48) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.75])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.86], t(48) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.71])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.23, 95% CI [-4.92, 0.45], t(48) = -1.63, p = 0.104; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.62 (95% CI [22.52, 32.72], t(48) = 10.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-8.84, 5.42], t(48) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-4.02, 2.95], t(48) = -0.30, p = 0.763; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-6.49, 5.04], t(48) = -0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 177.087 | 183.054 | -85.544 | 171.087 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 180.239 | 192.173 | -84.120 | 168.239 | 2.848 | 3 | 0.416 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 249.782 | 255.749 | -121.891 | 243.782 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 255.531 | 267.465 | -121.766 | 243.531 | 0.251 | 3 | 0.969 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 304.865 | 310.832 | -149.433 | 298.865 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 309.028 | 320.962 | -148.514 | 297.028 | 1.837 | 3 | 0.607 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 225.074 | 231.041 | -109.537 | 219.074 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 230.369 | 242.303 | -109.185 | 218.369 | 0.705 | 3 | 0.872 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 266.852 | 272.819 | -130.426 | 260.852 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 271.192 | 283.126 | -129.596 | 259.192 | 1.660 | 3 | 0.646 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 257.137 | 263.104 | -125.569 | 251.137 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 261.219 | 273.153 | -124.610 | 249.219 | 1.918 | 3 | 0.590 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 249.320 | 255.287 | -121.660 | 243.320 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 249.192 | 261.126 | -118.596 | 237.192 | 6.128 | 3 | 0.106 |
symptom | null | 3 | 391.475 | 397.442 | -192.738 | 385.475 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 396.693 | 408.627 | -192.347 | 384.693 | 0.782 | 3 | 0.854 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 310.772 | 316.739 | -152.386 | 304.772 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 309.491 | 321.425 | -148.746 | 297.491 | 7.281 | 3 | 0.063 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 332.040 | 338.007 | -163.020 | 326.040 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 335.167 | 347.100 | -161.583 | 323.167 | 2.873 | 3 | 0.412 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 349.884 | 355.851 | -171.942 | 343.884 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 348.518 | 360.452 | -168.259 | 336.518 | 7.366 | 3 | 0.061 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 286.616 | 292.583 | -140.308 | 280.616 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 291.028 | 302.961 | -139.514 | 279.028 | 1.589 | 3 | 0.662 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 331.964 | 337.931 | -162.982 | 325.964 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 335.065 | 346.999 | -161.533 | 323.065 | 2.899 | 3 | 0.408 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 349.372 | 355.339 | -171.686 | 343.372 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 354.032 | 365.965 | -171.016 | 342.032 | 1.341 | 3 | 0.720 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 304.076 | 310.043 | -149.038 | 298.076 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 303.451 | 315.385 | -145.726 | 291.451 | 6.625 | 3 | 0.085 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 272.200 | 278.167 | -133.100 | 266.200 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 276.709 | 288.643 | -132.355 | 264.709 | 1.491 | 3 | 0.684 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 267.018 | 272.985 | -130.509 | 261.018 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 268.777 | 280.711 | -128.389 | 256.777 | 4.241 | 3 | 0.237 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 275.329 | 281.296 | -134.664 | 269.329 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 274.610 | 286.544 | -131.305 | 262.610 | 6.719 | 3 | 0.081 |
els | null | 3 | 335.279 | 341.246 | -164.639 | 329.279 | |||
els | random | 6 | 334.716 | 346.650 | -161.358 | 322.716 | 6.563 | 3 | 0.087 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 391.195 | 397.162 | -192.598 | 385.195 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 392.548 | 404.482 | -190.274 | 380.548 | 4.647 | 3 | 0.200 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 312.423 | 318.390 | -153.212 | 306.423 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 315.608 | 327.542 | -151.804 | 303.608 | 2.815 | 3 | 0.421 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 282.170 | 288.137 | -138.085 | 276.170 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 286.245 | 298.179 | -137.123 | 274.245 | 1.924 | 3 | 0.588 |
shs | null | 3 | 362.354 | 368.321 | -178.177 | 356.354 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 365.070 | 377.004 | -176.535 | 353.070 | 3.284 | 3 | 0.350 |
esteem | null | 3 | 181.831 | 187.797 | -87.915 | 175.831 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 181.889 | 193.823 | -84.945 | 169.889 | 5.941 | 3 | 0.114 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 289.152 | 295.118 | -141.576 | 283.152 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 294.174 | 306.108 | -141.087 | 282.174 | 0.977 | 3 | 0.807 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 293.054 | 299.021 | -143.527 | 287.054 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 291.459 | 303.393 | -139.730 | 279.459 | 7.594 | 3 | 0.055 |
mlq | null | 3 | 359.687 | 365.654 | -176.844 | 353.687 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 361.829 | 373.763 | -174.915 | 349.829 | 3.858 | 3 | 0.277 |
empower | null | 3 | 293.249 | 299.216 | -143.624 | 287.249 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 297.158 | 309.092 | -142.579 | 285.158 | 2.091 | 3 | 0.554 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 256.542 | 262.509 | -125.271 | 250.542 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 262.447 | 274.381 | -125.224 | 250.447 | 0.095 | 3 | 0.992 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 270.591 | 276.558 | -132.295 | 264.591 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 272.608 | 284.542 | -130.304 | 260.608 | 3.982 | 3 | 0.263 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 292.447 | 298.414 | -143.223 | 286.447 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 296.978 | 308.912 | -142.489 | 284.978 | 1.468 | 3 | 0.690 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 304.849 | 310.816 | -149.424 | 298.849 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 307.905 | 319.839 | -147.952 | 295.905 | 2.944 | 3 | 0.400 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 296.848 | 302.815 | -145.424 | 290.848 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 299.537 | 311.471 | -143.768 | 287.537 | 3.311 | 3 | 0.346 |
sss | null | 3 | 402.670 | 408.637 | -198.335 | 396.670 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 408.039 | 419.973 | -198.020 | 396.039 | 0.631 | 3 | 0.889 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 21 | 3.38 ± 1.19 | 22 | 3.50 ± 1.19 | 0.745 | -0.102 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 7 | 4.13 ± 1.28 | -0.646 | 4 | 3.99 ± 1.30 | -0.419 | 0.858 | 0.125 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 21 | 18.43 ± 2.69 | 22 | 18.36 ± 2.69 | 0.937 | 0.058 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 7 | 18.28 ± 2.01 | 0.135 | 4 | 18.65 ± 1.82 | -0.254 | 0.754 | -0.332 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 21 | 30.24 ± 4.73 | 22 | 31.14 ± 4.73 | 0.537 | -0.647 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 7 | 30.86 ± 3.16 | -0.444 | 4 | 31.90 ± 2.68 | -0.553 | 0.562 | -0.755 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 21 | 12.29 ± 2.04 | 22 | 12.32 ± 2.04 | 0.959 | -0.030 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 7 | 11.88 ± 1.70 | 0.370 | 4 | 12.45 ± 1.61 | -0.119 | 0.584 | -0.519 |
ras_goal | 1st | 21 | 17.57 ± 3.13 | 22 | 17.77 ± 3.13 | 0.834 | -0.158 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 7 | 17.69 ± 2.31 | -0.092 | 4 | 16.72 ± 2.08 | 0.825 | 0.483 | 0.759 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 21 | 13.24 ± 3.11 | 22 | 13.64 ± 3.11 | 0.677 | -0.492 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 7 | 13.37 ± 2.02 | -0.168 | 4 | 14.31 ± 1.68 | -0.836 | 0.412 | -1.159 |
ras_domination | 1st | 21 | 10.95 ± 2.27 | 22 | 9.41 ± 2.27 | 0.031 | 0.771 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 7 | 9.85 ± 2.38 | 0.552 | 4 | 10.97 ± 2.40 | -0.782 | 0.456 | -0.564 |
symptom | 1st | 21 | 28.86 ± 10.28 | 22 | 30.45 ± 10.28 | 0.613 | -0.440 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 7 | 27.64 ± 7.23 | 0.334 | 4 | 30.24 ± 6.34 | 0.059 | 0.538 | -0.715 |
slof_work | 1st | 21 | 23.43 ± 5.00 | 22 | 22.55 ± 5.00 | 0.566 | 0.779 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 7 | 21.59 ± 3.17 | 1.621 | 4 | 22.01 ± 2.57 | 0.470 | 0.811 | -0.372 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 21 | 26.95 ± 5.77 | 22 | 25.73 ± 5.77 | 0.490 | 0.575 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 7 | 25.49 ± 4.12 | 0.685 | 4 | 26.99 ± 3.64 | -0.594 | 0.535 | -0.704 |
satisfaction | 1st | 21 | 19.86 ± 6.88 | 22 | 22.55 ± 6.88 | 0.207 | -1.394 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 7 | 22.27 ± 4.55 | -1.251 | 4 | 23.49 ± 3.82 | -0.489 | 0.637 | -0.632 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 21 | 11.14 ± 3.43 | 22 | 12.00 ± 3.43 | 0.416 | -0.349 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 7 | 12.29 ± 3.28 | -0.467 | 4 | 12.68 ± 3.25 | -0.278 | 0.849 | -0.160 |
mhc_social | 1st | 21 | 15.19 ± 5.23 | 22 | 14.68 ± 5.23 | 0.751 | 0.151 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 7 | 17.60 ± 4.74 | -0.716 | 4 | 13.80 ± 4.63 | 0.263 | 0.204 | 1.130 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 21 | 21.57 ± 6.15 | 22 | 22.95 ± 6.15 | 0.464 | -0.318 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 7 | 23.65 ± 5.85 | -0.476 | 4 | 23.11 ± 5.79 | -0.035 | 0.884 | 0.123 |
resilisnce | 1st | 21 | 16.86 ± 4.74 | 22 | 17.05 ± 4.74 | 0.897 | -0.177 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 7 | 17.24 ± 2.99 | -0.363 | 4 | 14.98 ± 2.43 | 1.938 | 0.180 | 2.124 |
social_provision | 1st | 21 | 13.43 ± 3.34 | 22 | 13.91 ± 3.34 | 0.639 | -0.377 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 7 | 13.10 ± 2.41 | 0.257 | 4 | 14.68 ± 2.14 | -0.603 | 0.270 | -1.238 |
els_value_living | 1st | 21 | 16.86 ± 3.04 | 22 | 17.41 ± 3.04 | 0.555 | -0.428 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 7 | 18.19 ± 2.28 | -1.037 | 4 | 17.15 ± 2.07 | 0.200 | 0.444 | 0.809 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 21 | 12.19 ± 3.25 | 22 | 13.91 ± 3.25 | 0.091 | -1.346 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 7 | 13.57 ± 2.37 | -1.079 | 4 | 13.73 ± 2.12 | 0.140 | 0.907 | -0.128 |
els | 1st | 21 | 29.05 ± 5.68 | 22 | 31.32 ± 5.68 | 0.197 | -1.018 | ||
els | 2nd | 7 | 31.76 ± 4.14 | -1.214 | 4 | 30.85 ± 3.70 | 0.211 | 0.710 | 0.407 |
social_connect | 1st | 21 | 27.05 ± 10.27 | 22 | 26.64 ± 10.27 | 0.896 | 0.138 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 7 | 28.79 ± 6.84 | -0.582 | 4 | 31.07 ± 5.79 | -1.484 | 0.559 | -0.764 |
shs_agency | 1st | 21 | 13.71 ± 4.88 | 22 | 14.64 ± 4.88 | 0.539 | -0.551 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 7 | 15.02 ± 3.40 | -0.778 | 4 | 14.14 ± 2.96 | 0.299 | 0.656 | 0.527 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 21 | 16.19 ± 3.67 | 22 | 17.18 ± 3.67 | 0.381 | -0.738 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 7 | 16.95 ± 2.61 | -0.563 | 4 | 17.06 ± 2.30 | 0.092 | 0.942 | -0.083 |
shs | 1st | 21 | 29.90 ± 7.94 | 22 | 31.82 ± 7.94 | 0.434 | -0.814 | ||
shs | 2nd | 7 | 31.82 ± 5.31 | -0.816 | 4 | 31.00 ± 4.51 | 0.348 | 0.787 | 0.350 |
esteem | 1st | 21 | 12.67 ± 1.22 | 22 | 12.32 ± 1.22 | 0.353 | 0.326 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 7 | 13.56 ± 1.27 | -0.836 | 4 | 12.32 ± 1.29 | -0.005 | 0.131 | 1.157 |
mlq_search | 1st | 21 | 15.19 ± 3.46 | 22 | 15.23 ± 3.46 | 0.972 | -0.013 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 7 | 15.95 ± 3.57 | -0.260 | 4 | 13.99 ± 3.59 | 0.425 | 0.387 | 0.673 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 21 | 14.14 ± 4.09 | 22 | 13.23 ± 4.09 | 0.467 | 0.830 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 7 | 14.81 ± 2.68 | -0.603 | 4 | 11.32 ± 2.24 | 1.729 | 0.025 | 3.162 |
mlq | 1st | 21 | 29.33 ± 7.02 | 22 | 28.45 ± 7.02 | 0.684 | 0.258 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 7 | 30.65 ± 5.57 | -0.387 | 4 | 24.67 ± 5.18 | 1.111 | 0.084 | 1.755 |
empower | 1st | 21 | 20.10 ± 4.36 | 22 | 19.82 ± 4.36 | 0.836 | 0.251 | ||
empower | 2nd | 7 | 20.50 ± 2.82 | -0.369 | 4 | 18.94 ± 2.33 | 0.794 | 0.328 | 1.414 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 21 | 14.95 ± 2.67 | 22 | 14.91 ± 2.67 | 0.958 | 0.025 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 7 | 14.82 ± 2.43 | 0.075 | 4 | 15.25 ± 2.37 | -0.198 | 0.777 | -0.248 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 21 | 12.00 ± 3.08 | 22 | 10.41 ± 3.08 | 0.098 | 1.084 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 7 | 11.14 ± 2.43 | 0.584 | 4 | 10.23 ± 2.25 | 0.124 | 0.532 | 0.624 |
sss_affective | 1st | 21 | 9.95 ± 4.24 | 22 | 9.05 ± 4.24 | 0.487 | 0.738 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 7 | 9.62 ± 2.82 | 0.267 | 4 | 8.37 ± 2.39 | 0.548 | 0.438 | 1.018 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 21 | 10.19 ± 4.37 | 22 | 8.82 ± 4.37 | 0.309 | 0.740 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 7 | 8.87 ± 3.28 | 0.714 | 4 | 8.54 ± 2.97 | 0.150 | 0.866 | 0.177 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 21 | 7.48 ± 4.11 | 22 | 8.05 ± 4.11 | 0.652 | -0.358 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 7 | 8.71 ± 2.98 | -0.776 | 4 | 7.05 ± 2.66 | 0.625 | 0.347 | 1.043 |
sss | 1st | 21 | 27.62 ± 11.92 | 22 | 25.91 ± 11.92 | 0.641 | 0.507 | ||
sss | 2nd | 7 | 27.08 ± 7.89 | 0.159 | 4 | 24.65 ± 6.64 | 0.375 | 0.588 | 0.723 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(49.95) = 0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.85)
2st
t(49.53) = -0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.77 to 1.48)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(42.72) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.59)
2st
t(31.94) = 0.32, p = 0.754, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.79)
ras_confidence
1st
t(41.81) = 0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.81)
2st
t(42.78) = 0.59, p = 0.562, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-2.57 to 4.67)
ras_willingness
1st
t(43.96) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.29)
2st
t(27.77) = 0.55, p = 0.584, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.68)
ras_goal
1st
t(42.60) = 0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.13)
2st
t(32.79) = -0.71, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.80)
ras_reliance
1st
t(41.63) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.31)
2st
t(46.11) = 0.83, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -1.16, 95% CI (-1.35 to 3.22)
ras_domination
1st
t(49.14) = -2.23, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-2.94 to -0.15)
2st
t(42.43) = 0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.90 to 4.16)
symptom
1st
t(42.19) = 0.51, p = 0.613, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-4.73 to 7.93)
2st
t(36.85) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-5.88 to 11.08)
slof_work
1st
t(41.48) = -0.58, p = 0.566, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-3.96 to 2.20)
2st
t(48.72) = 0.24, p = 0.811, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-3.11 to 3.95)
slof_relationship
1st
t(42.31) = -0.70, p = 0.490, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-4.77 to 2.32)
2st
t(35.46) = 0.63, p = 0.535, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-3.36 to 6.36)
satisfaction
1st
t(41.73) = 1.28, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -1.39, 95% CI (-1.55 to 6.93)
2st
t(44.16) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-3.96 to 6.40)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(46.58) = 0.82, p = 0.416, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.96)
2st
t(30.48) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-3.78 to 4.57)
mhc_social
1st
t(45.40) = -0.32, p = 0.751, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.72 to 2.70)
2st
t(28.11) = -1.30, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-9.80 to 2.19)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(46.42) = 0.74, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-2.39 to 5.16)
2st
t(30.08) = -0.15, p = 0.884, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-7.97 to 6.90)
resilisnce
1st
t(41.47) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.73 to 3.11)
2st
t(48.85) = -1.36, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 2.12, 95% CI (-5.60 to 1.08)
social_provision
1st
t(42.41) = 0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.57 to 2.53)
2st
t(34.49) = 1.12, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (-1.28 to 4.43)
els_value_living
1st
t(42.76) = 0.60, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.42)
2st
t(31.62) = -0.78, p = 0.444, Cohen d = 0.81, 95% CI (-3.79 to 1.70)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(42.49) = 1.73, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -1.35, 95% CI (-0.28 to 3.72)
2st
t(33.70) = 0.12, p = 0.907, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-2.66 to 2.99)
els
1st
t(42.49) = 1.31, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (-1.22 to 5.76)
2st
t(33.66) = -0.37, p = 0.710, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-5.83 to 4.02)
social_connect
1st
t(41.79) = -0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-6.74 to 5.91)
2st
t(43.06) = 0.59, p = 0.559, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-5.54 to 10.11)
shs_agency
1st
t(42.12) = 0.62, p = 0.539, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-2.08 to 3.93)
2st
t(37.78) = -0.45, p = 0.656, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-4.86 to 3.09)
shs_pathway
1st
t(42.28) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-1.27 to 3.25)
2st
t(35.78) = 0.07, p = 0.942, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.97 to 3.19)
shs
1st
t(41.82) = 0.79, p = 0.434, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-2.97 to 6.80)
2st
t(42.53) = -0.27, p = 0.787, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-6.91 to 5.27)
esteem
1st
t(49.09) = -0.94, p = 0.353, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.40)
2st
t(42.10) = -1.54, p = 0.131, Cohen d = 1.16, 95% CI (-2.86 to 0.39)
mlq_search
1st
t(48.61) = 0.03, p = 0.972, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.09 to 2.16)
2st
t(38.95) = -0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-6.50 to 2.58)
mlq_presence
1st
t(41.68) = -0.73, p = 0.467, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.60)
2st
t(45.20) = -2.31, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 3.16, 95% CI (-6.52 to -0.45)
mlq
1st
t(43.36) = -0.41, p = 0.684, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-5.20 to 3.44)
2st
t(28.95) = -1.79, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 1.76, 95% CI (-12.81 to 0.85)
empower
1st
t(41.59) = -0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.41)
2st
t(46.77) = -0.99, p = 0.328, Cohen d = 1.41, 95% CI (-4.74 to 1.62)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(45.49) = -0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.59)
2st
t(28.24) = 0.29, p = 0.777, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-2.64 to 3.50)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(43.26) = -1.69, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-3.49 to 0.31)
2st
t(29.25) = -0.63, p = 0.532, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-3.88 to 2.05)
sss_affective
1st
t(41.79) = -0.70, p = 0.487, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-3.52 to 1.71)
2st
t(43.17) = -0.78, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-4.48 to 1.98)
sss_behavior
1st
t(42.77) = -1.03, p = 0.309, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-4.06 to 1.31)
2st
t(31.62) = -0.17, p = 0.866, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-4.27 to 3.61)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(42.45) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.96 to 3.10)
2st
t(34.06) = -0.95, p = 0.347, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-5.20 to 1.88)
sss
1st
t(41.75) = -0.47, p = 0.641, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-9.05 to 5.63)
2st
t(43.90) = -0.55, p = 0.588, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-11.43 to 6.56)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(36.51) = 0.70, p = 0.971, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.89)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(10.59) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.02)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(9.70) = 0.79, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.95)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(12.04) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.77)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(10.47) = -1.19, p = 0.523, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-3.01 to 0.91)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(9.54) = 1.19, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.95)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(26.47) = 1.25, p = 0.446, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-1.01 to 4.14)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(10.06) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-5.86 to 5.44)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(9.40) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.33 to 1.26)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(10.18) = 0.85, p = 0.829, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-2.04 to 4.57)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(9.63) = 0.70, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-2.09 to 3.97)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(16.58) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-2.76 to 4.13)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(14.21) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-5.74 to 3.97)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(16.24) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-5.97 to 6.28)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(9.39) = -2.75, p = 0.043, Cohen d = 1.94, 95% CI (-3.75 to -0.38)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(10.27) = 0.87, p = 0.813, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.74)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(10.64) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.24 to 1.72)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(10.36) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.15 to 1.79)
els
1st vs 2st
t(10.36) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.91 to 2.97)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(9.69) = 2.12, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -1.48, 95% CI (-0.26 to 9.12)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(9.99) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.11 to 2.11)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(10.15) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.21 to 1.96)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(9.71) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-4.50 to 2.87)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(26.17) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.37 to 1.38)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(23.40) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.08 to 2.60)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(9.58) = -2.46, p = 0.069, Cohen d = 1.73, 95% CI (-3.64 to -0.17)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(11.30) = -1.61, p = 0.270, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-8.94 to 1.37)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(9.51) = -1.13, p = 0.573, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-2.62 to 0.87)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(14.38) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.15 to 2.84)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(11.19) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.41 to 2.04)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(9.68) = -0.78, p = 0.907, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.26)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(10.64) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.12 to 2.57)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(10.32) = -0.90, p = 0.781, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-3.45 to 1.47)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(9.65) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-6.56 to 4.03)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(27.38) = 1.39, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.87)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(10.26) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.17)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(9.56) = 0.84, p = 0.846, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.27)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(11.37) = -0.71, p = 0.984, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.66 to 0.85)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(10.17) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.37 to 1.61)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(9.44) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.10)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(20.99) = -1.14, p = 0.536, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-3.13 to 0.92)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(9.85) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-5.51 to 3.08)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(9.33) = -3.04, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 1.62, 95% CI (-3.20 to -0.48)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(9.94) = -1.30, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-3.97 to 1.05)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(9.51) = 2.35, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (0.11 to 4.71)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(14.60) = 0.92, p = 0.746, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.52 to 3.81)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(12.95) = 1.39, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-1.33 to 6.15)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(14.36) = 0.94, p = 0.729, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.66 to 6.81)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(9.32) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.66)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(10.02) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.83 to 1.17)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(10.30) = 1.97, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -1.04, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.84)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(10.08) = 2.04, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -1.08, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.88)
els
1st vs 2st
t(10.08) = 2.30, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -1.21, 95% CI (0.09 to 5.33)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(9.55) = 1.10, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.82 to 5.30)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(9.80) = 1.47, p = 0.346, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.68 to 3.28)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(9.92) = 1.06, p = 0.625, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.34)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(9.57) = 1.54, p = 0.313, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.88 to 4.71)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(20.79) = 1.72, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.98)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(19.05) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.24 to 3.76)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(9.47) = 1.13, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.98)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(10.81) = 0.74, p = 0.953, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-2.62 to 5.25)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(9.41) = 0.69, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.73)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(13.06) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.05 to 1.79)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(10.73) = -1.11, p = 0.580, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.56 to 0.84)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(9.55) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.14)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(10.30) = -1.35, p = 0.409, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-3.49 to 0.84)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(10.05) = 1.47, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.64 to 3.11)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(9.52) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-4.55 to 3.48)